Box Beam Configuration
Box Beam Configuration
(OP)
I'm in the initial design stages of a 40-foot span x 18-foot roadway box beam bridge (which will be subject to loads greater than HL-93) and have two questions:
1. Would either of the two (file attached) superstructure configurations have an advantage over the other for design or constructabilty reasons.
2. As the bridge will be constructed on a gravel surfaced roadway and I've got weak clay for about 10 to 15-feet below grade from the top of slope on both sides, would it be reasonable to found it on an integral abutment system and provide approach slabs on both ends?
Thanks in advance for any and all help.
Jack
1. Would either of the two (file attached) superstructure configurations have an advantage over the other for design or constructabilty reasons.
2. As the bridge will be constructed on a gravel surfaced roadway and I've got weak clay for about 10 to 15-feet below grade from the top of slope on both sides, would it be reasonable to found it on an integral abutment system and provide approach slabs on both ends?
Thanks in advance for any and all help.
Jack





RE: Box Beam Configuration
RE: Box Beam Configuration
RE: Box Beam Configuration
The link below will lead you to the NYSDOT standard sheets for IA bridges. You can do it with box beams.
https
RE: Box Beam Configuration
-Jack
RE: Box Beam Configuration
RE: Box Beam Configuration
From looking at the details that bridgebuster posted, the beams sit on the seat but aren't tied to the abutment other than through the bearing pad. In my mind the only way I could see it being integral was if the extended backwall and beams were post tensioned.
I'm just a young guy so I'd really like to hear from others that are more knowledgeable about the subject. Sorry to hijack the thread JackTrades.
RE: Box Beam Configuration
RE: Box Beam Configuration
RE: Box Beam Configuration